Attacking Syria

Russias President Vladimir Putin, left, greets U.S. President Barack Obama at the start of the G20 summit Thursday in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Published on Sat Sep 07 2013

Re: Obama has stumbled over his own ‘red line,' Sept. 4

Re: Stiffen our Syria stance, Editorial Aug. 30

Obama has stumbled over his own ‘red line,' Sept. 4

I am very concerned that the Canadian government has yet to condemn the U.S.’s efforts to invade yet another country. The pretext for the invasion this time appears to be “use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.”

Though UN Secretary General Ban Ki Mun has been clear that this attack will be illegal and outside international law unless approved by the UN, the U.S. is reluctant to bring forward the case for an attack to the UN Security Council.

Perhaps it is because they are embarrassed due to its actions in the recent past when the former secretary of state Colin Powell eloquently presented “concrete evidence” for the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or perhaps they are not confident that the “proof” of Syria’s use of chemical weapons can be defended in a non-partisan, international, legal environment, or perhaps they just dont care about the legal norms.

Mr. Obama’s administration is so confident in the intelligence apparatus that within hours after the chemical attack, not only did they confirm that it was launched by the Syrian government but also informed the world that 1,429 civilians were killed. The precise number of civilians killed was confirmed not by a lowly over-zealous operative but by the Secretary of State John Kerry. Again, the number is 1,429, not 1,428, not 1,430, but 1,429. No wonder the rest of the world, including the “unwashed masses” within the war-mongering countries are taking this with a grain of salt.

After all this administration does not have a lot of strength when it comes to accuracy about facts. Remember how vehemently they initially denied the existence of the secret eavesdropping program after Edward Snowden had exposed it.

The U.S. has in the past fabricated evidence and outrightedly lied to the international community and launched illegal wars. As their allies, we must counsel them to work within the realms of international law. It is perhaps plausible that they will ignore our advice, however Canada has a strong tradition of operating within the law, and we must encourage others to do the same. This Canadian value is not just the right thing to do, it is the only thing to do.

As the thousands of people are yet again at the mercy of the devastating U.S. weaponry, Canada owes it to them to provide moral leadership.

Mubashir Rizvi, Pickering

It seems Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress can’t overcome their natural, knee-jerk love of warfare after all. Instead of taking advantage of their colossal opportunity to hand President Obama a major political defeat, they’re now lining up behind his savage, hypocritical and illegal military action to “punish” the Syrian regime for chemical weapons attacks it probably isn’t even responsible for.

As it happens, in the last week it’s finally been definitively established, despite longstanding U.S. denials, that former U.S. president Ronald Reagan directly aided Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s nerve gas attacks on Iran in the late 1980s — part of a war Hussein instigated with U.S. approval. These were among the worst chemical weapons attacks ever, at least as devastating as anything the Syrian regime is alleged to have done.

And the U.S. didn’t merely stand idly by; it provided intelligence to help Iraq target the attacks. The words “hypocrisy” and “irony” are hardly adequate.

Andrew Brooks, Toronto

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that if the U.S. does not strike Syria, then Saudi Arabia and Qatar will fund Islamist extremists “out of frustration because they think they’re the best fighters.”

I was under the impression that funding Al Qaeda was illegal and could land one in prison on charges of treason and “supporting terrorism.” Yet when America’s allies do so they are not criminally charged, they are not attacked with drones, and their terror-support is actually presented as a reason for America to bomb Syria in support of the same jihadist cause.

Would anyone have believed in the days after 9/11 that 12 years later the U.S. would find itself about to enter a war on Al Qaeda’s side? Either the “war on terror” is officially over or else it was a massive lie to begin with.

I suspect that the special interests who own the U.S. government — Saudi Arabia, Israel, the military industrial complex — have deemed the main enemy to be Iran and that Al Qaeda is a now useful ally to that end. A disgusting betrayal of those who died on 9/11 and those who died fighting terrorism in the years since. It was all for nothing.

Jan Burton, Toronto

Five things you should know about Syria, Sept. 4

The basic assumptions by Max Fisher could easily be turned on its head, specifically to question #3. The changes made to Max Fisher’s thesis are in bold oblique.

Max Fisher’s question/response:

3. I hear a lot about how Russia and Iran still love Syria. What’s their deal?

Russia is Syria’s most important ally. Moscow blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Assad regime, which is why the U.S. has to go around the UN if it wants to do anything.

There are four big reasons Russia wants to protect Assad: 1. Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and their last foreign military base outside of the former Soviet Union; 2. Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances; 3. Russia also hates the idea of “international intervention” against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism; 4. Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports and Russia needs the money.

Iran’s thinking in supporting Assad is more straightforward. It perceives Israel and the U.S. as existential threats and uses Syria to protect itself, shipping arms through Syria to the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah and the Gaza-based militant group Hamas.

Alternate question/response:

3. I hear a lot about how the United States of America (USA) still loves Israel. What’s their deal?

USA is Israel’s most important ally. USA blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Netanyahu regime, which is why Russia has to go around the UN if it wants to do anything.

There are four big reasons the USA wants to protect Netanyahu: 1. USA has naval ships and submarines in the Mediterranean Sea, which is strategically important; 2. USA still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its military alliances; 3. USA also hates the idea of “international intervention” against Israel because it goes against the interests of Israel and the American Jewish lobby; 4. Israel buys a lot of American military exports and the USA needs to keep feeding the “out of control” industrial military complex of the country.

USA’s thinking in supporting Netanyahu is more straightforward. It perceives Syria and Iran as existential threats and uses Israel to protect its so-called strategic interests, shipping arms and monies to Israel.

Aquil Ali, Toronto

History just took a bad step. If the Americans back a strike on Syria we will be facing unpredictable global consequences. However, it is still true that I can prove intellectually that there is a God and that there is no evil and because these can be proven it opens to view a new paradigm for a suffering world.

Yes, I am an ontologist and ontology immediately reveals how flawed are the areas of science and religion, what your reporters love to call egregious flaws. The problem is getting this information to the world. Right now it lies on library shelves in bits and pieces gathering dust.

By the way, did you know that my brother Don von Hostein-Rathlou used to be private secretary to Pierre Berton? ‘Sfact.

H. Rathlou, Mississauga

The brutal conflict in Syria has killed over 100,000 people and it is estimated that the number of Syrians who have fled the country has surpassed the 2 million mark.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has supported violent extremism whenever he found it useful. Relentless bombardment, and continuous mass killing continues to this day across the country.

The world has a moral duty for helping the tens of thousands of Syrian victims of the long-running conflict along with the complete destruction and elimination of chemical weapons.

Waris Shere, Winnipeg

Proof again that the profound naivite of Americans knows no bounds. They have been successfully duped by Al Queda in their framing of Assad for the dispersal of sarin nerve gas, which was prepared in Saudi Arabia and released by the rebels in Syria. There is ample evidence of that but no proof that it was the Syrian government responsible.

Islamist Wahabi Saudi Arabia and Sunni Turkey are enemies of the secular Alawite Assad — they want him replaced by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Al Queda rebels. Now Obama — himself a card carrying member of the MB — can assist his brethren in making it happen — while dragging the U.S. into another typical Sunni vs. Shi’ite power struggle.

At least the Egyptian army got it right and removed Morsi from power to the chagrin of Obama.

Mel Glickman, Toronto

A strong case can be made that the Obama administration has for some time badly mishandled developments in Syria and continues to do so. Limited international military intervention in Syria — a no-fly zone accompanied with the creation of safe haven corridors near border areas for internal refugees — would have been very helpful earlier in the conflict. Now with the Russians having upgraded Syrian air defenses and the opposition forces splintering and radicalizing those options are largely closed.

Washington, having earlier dropped the ball, now lobbies for a surgical strike to punish the Syrian regime for its use of chemical weapons. But this should never have been made a “red line” as chemical weapons are in reality a weapon of mass destruction in name only. As repulsive as they are, their use by the Assad regime constitutes about one per cent of the deaths in the overall civil war.

Obama’s current plans have regrettably much more to do with the United States saving face over its questionable red lines than actually preventing the spilling of more Syrian red blood.

Simon Rosenblum, Toronto

Obama is not Prince Hamlet nor was he meant to be. He should either go into Syria and get rid of the brutal and tyrannical Assad regime or stay out completely and let them kill each other to the end, unless the UN can get its act together. This idea of a “limited” strike is absurd even for this closet pacifist.

James R. Dubro, Toronto

Obama’s abrupt decision on Saturday to wait for the approval from Congress and likely also the UN before launching an attack against Assad’s regime can be neatly summed up in a few words: “Obama fiddles while Syria burns.”

Dina Austin, Bramalea

The American reason for a military strike on Syria is a prime example of the Slippery Slope fallacy, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitably of the event in question.

We do not know for sure that the use of chemical weapons will spread if Syria is not bombed by America.

Graeme Gardiner, Sidney, B.C.

Justice is not served up at the end of a cruise missile. Syria’s Bashar Assad has to be tried for crimes against humanity at the Hague. Remember that thing we call the Geneva Convention? Humane treatment of combatants. The logistics of getting Assad to the Hague would be troublesome but worth the effort.

A $100 million incentive would help — a bounty for the capture (alive) of Assad. Delivered to the Hague for trial.

Paul Tedesco, Mississauga

American efforts to mobilize world opinion in favour of military action against Syria seems to have defused due to failure of proving decisively that Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons, killing more than 1,400 people.

Credibility’s of U.S., its Congress and European Allies as well as that of international community are certainly on line to exercise appropriate means, sanctioned, approved & acted upon under the umbrella of UN in order to stop massacre of innocent people in Syria due to the use of alleged chemical weapons or WMD, either by the ruling party or the rebels.

International community has a moral duty to exert pressure on US to refrain from punitive military actions against Syria on alleged use of chemical weapons as it is a disputed issue and unless proven categorically, US should stop crying wolf in justifying its wrong assertion once again just like it did during Iraq crisis. As some of its allies have got negative response from parliamentarian to support and participate in the war against Syria, it is hoped that Congress would also not support the intention of the ruling party.

News media network has a responsibility to prove 1429 causalities of alleged chemical weapons as it mounts to lots of death that should be captured through graphic footage showing victims on mass scale rather than showing individual cases of patients in hospitals. A chemical attack is possible from both side and if happened, there should be many casualties in Damascus and its suburbs, on the street that could have been shown on TV to prove the point. The alleged incident happened on Aug 21st and since then 12 days have elapsed for US to prove allegation but they failed to provide sufficient evidences to support its stance on this subject, whereas Syria has strenuously denied that it has ever used chemical weapons. Initial report and video footage of the attack could not prove categorically that the chemical weapons were actually used and if so who used it?

It is better for the US to seek resolution through UN or Security Council of UN rather than unilateral military action against Syria. US has already lost its credibility on world affairs and punitive military action against Syria will further jeopardize it position in the world.

Mohammad Ashraf, Winnipeg

Obama goes to Congress to get support for his foolhardy idea to bomb Syria, with his trumped up proof of who did it for only one reason: to get him off the hook, as he figures they won’t approve it. His do-not-cross-the-line bravado makes him look pretty weak if he does not carry out his threat. Alas Congress can help me save face. France is another story and like Canada should take up making Poutine instead of war.

I am surprised Russia has not acted more strongly. Putin should be telling Obama and France that Syria is an ally and any attack on it will be interpreted as an act of war and may require a Russian response to help such an ally. Russia isn’t much of an ally when it sit’s idly by.

Personally they should all mind their own business, but I guess that is why they get involved in the first place, business interests. The only sure fire winner’s are the weapons manufacturers who supply all the carnage.

William Arsenault, Napanee

I am bemused by all the “sudden” hysteria and frenzy about Syria, since the alleged chemical weapons allegedly killed 1,429 people. What about the more than the 100,000 people who have been killed in Syria since 2011 and the inaction of the international community in over two years? Who speaks for them?

Barry Bloch. Thornhill

Israel-U.S. carry out missile test in Mediterranean, Sept. 3

When the French refused to join the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq, Americans were so mad at them they wanted to change French fries to “Freedom fries.” Now that the British are refusing to join the U.S. bombardment of Syria, I wonder if English muffins will become “Freedom muffins?”

And if Canada takes a pass on bashing Bashar will we have to order Freedom bacon instead of Canadian bacon when we dine in U.S. restaurants?

William Bedford, Toronto

Good ol’ Canada! The Foreign Minister, John Baird, calls a press conference to announce — in no uncertain terms — that Canada stands ready to hold America’s coat while urging — in the strongest possible manner — that the U.S. give Syria a good pounding.

You can always count on Canada when it comes to decisive action.

R.T. Garvin, Toronto

I did not agree with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, nor with Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan and Libya. None of those interventions ended up achieving their stated goals of saving civilian lives or ensuring a safer, more democratic home for anyone. Those actions also destroyed the souls of many soldiers and their families, some who I know and love.

Canadian military involvement in Syria would be catastrophic and, so, I am grateful that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is walking away from such involvement. If we are truly to save innocent lives in Syria, our government must encourage the U.S. and France to also stand back, and take brave steps towards making the United Nations more accountable and effective.

The brutal slaughter of innocents, especially children, most notably in the Aug. 21 heart-breaking attack, is incomprehensible and mind-numbing, yet I join others in saying that it is not, and cannot, be clear in this conflict, as it was not clear in Libya or Egypt, who is wearing the white shirt and who the black. Indeed it appears that all are wearing shades of grey.

In addition, any military strikes aimed at chemical facilities in Syria would surely release dangerous and deadly gases against more innocent people. A military strike against Syria would be abominable.

If our government, and governments around the world, are sincerely committed to brokering stability and security and peace in Syria, then our leaders must show far greater leadership than they have over the last two years both within and without the UN.

I stand firmly with the statement issued by the Canadian Peace Alliance and I urge our government to work hard to ensure that Canada takes a leadership role in demanding and negotiating a ceasefire in Syria, in brokering a lasting peace, and then in ensuring that all those responsible for war crimes and attrocities are held to account at the International Criminal Court.

At this time of crisis, I also ask that Prime Minister Harper demands that all MPs return to the House of Parliament so that our government can show everyone in Syria and around the world that Canada is serious about demanding safety and security for all innocent people in Syria, and that it is time that serious steps are taken to ensure that the United Nations evolves into a truly effective, global entity.

Charlotte Sheasby-Coleman, Etobicoke

Having backed himself into a corner by saying use of chemicals against civilians in Syria would cross a red line and lead to strong action, U.S. President Barack Obama is now trying to extricate himself. His going to Congress will hopefully mean wiser heads will talk him out of an attack that will do nothing but further raise the anger of the Middle East against the West.

Thankfully Prime Minister Harper already opted out of Canada being involved in military action against the Assad regime. U.K.’s Prime Minister David Cameron failed to get the support of his parliament. Consequently Obama finds himself without full major international support for an attack.

The fact military action would likely take place just before the eve of 9/11, also should help dissuade Obama, as that would greatly increase the threat to American embassies throughout the Middle East.

Larry Comeau, Ottawa

The following information should give you serious cause to re-examine the implications of this editorial. I quote, “All evidence suggests that the regime, not the rebels, unleashed these nightmare weapons.” All evidence?

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would have to have a death wish to launch a chemical attack within miles of a UN chemical inspection team. According to the Obama administration, he launched a chemical weapons attack on Syrian rebels at Ghouta at the same time he was welcoming United Nations chemical weapons inspectors into his country.

There are plenty of reasonable pretexts for the Free Syrian Army to have launched a chemical weapons attack and evidence seems to have been overlooked or ignored in your editorial, evidence submitted by Carla Del Ponte of the UNand the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria.

Do you really wish to align your paper with Al Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front? This terrorist grouping has been steadily losing ground to the Syrian government forces and would be strongly motivated to suck the U.S. into another Iraq scenario. Just like George W. Bush, Obama has said it is too late to wait for the UN weapons experts, expected to be released in a few weeks.

Obama could be heading down the path to impeachment for starting an illegal war without UN or congressional approval in violation of international and domestic law. The other day 163 members of Congress sent letters to Obama telling him that under the U.S. Constitution he requires congressional approval before beginning a military attack. He would be in violation of the separation of powers clause of the Constitution. The military has warned him that they have serious doubts about a military attack. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that the risks and pitfalls could indicate “deeper involvement are hard to avoid.”

So, though the rhetoric and premise is the same as the war in Iraq, serious consideration should be made if we believe that war should be our last resort. Syria can defend itself and attack U.S. military vessels. Russia and Iran, once drawn into the conflict, will launch threats of retaliation. Already Russia is moving two additional naval ships, a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine vessel into the Mediterranean. Russia has threatened an attack on Saudi Arabia if the U.S. attacks Syria. Saudi Arabia is threatening Chechen terrorism at the Russian Olympics. Iran, Syria and Hexbollah have threatened retaliation against Israel.

We implore you at the Star to reassess this situation as President Obama does not require your support or ours in starting a much larger war than any of us could anticipate.

As we have known for many years, wars almost always go wrong.

David Redmon, Toronto

It’s ironic that the U.S. appears poised to attack Syria so close to the anniversary of 9/11. It might even be deliberately timed, but all of the posturing and rhetoric can’t hide the economic reality behind military action.

The armaments industry is the lynchpin of the U.S. economy and more Americans draw their paycheques, directly or indirectly, from the Department of Defense than from any other single employer. The business of America is war.

John Scott MacMurchy, Toronto

Isn’t it interesting that Britian’s Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament to hold a vote on a response to the Syrian crisis while Presidents Harper and Obama acted unilaterally. Very revealing.

David Ottenbrite, Mississauga

Stiffen our Syria stance, Editorial Aug. 30

I’m getting pretty sick of opening my newspaper every morning and seeing you lobby for military action against Syria. As a labour studies student at McMaster University, it makes me sad to hear people refer to you as the “Red Star.” I would think that the voice of the left would be a little more critical of U.S. intelligence after the Iraq experience.

When you’re being more hawkish than Stephen Harper, perhaps it’s time to take a long hard look at yourselves.

Charlie Wain, Milton

The Toronto Star, arguably the most compassionate and liberal media outlet in Canada, urges this country to get more deeply involved and add “material support” to America’s latest international venture. That venture involves the flying of multi-million dollar bombers over and dropping million-dollar bombs on selected targets in Syria.

Selected targets always involve people — fathers, mothers and children; thousands of fathers and mothers and children. And, yet, this lethal, risk-free action is treated by most with the casual insouciance of the beat cop swiping an apple from the corner green grocer.

Why? If Guernica and Nanking, 75 years ago, were crimes against humanity, why is this different? Victims will be no less dead in Damascus than they were in Guernica or Nanking — or Baghdad.

W.H. Joe Watson, Oakville

If there is indeed an attack on Syria, the motivation is not humanitarian protection or the Judeo-Christian nations attacking another Muslim majority country. It will be like all other recent attacks, where they have happened in the recent past, an act by the oil-dependent capitalist powers to preserve and control the oil supply.

Why Iraq and not Rwanda? Why Libya and not Congo? And what about what former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower so aptly termed the military-industrial complex, that may now be concerned declining profit with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq winding down, or are they?

Hakim Feerasta, Toronto

Who’s planning middle east strategy, Larry, Moe and Curly Joe? Obama, are you Syrias?! What an embarrassment!

Herb Stark, Mooresville, N.C.

If Obama is so determined to bomb Syria, I hope he has the integrity to give back his Nobel Peace Prize.